• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

September 24, 2017 — Paracast Listener Grills Gene and Randall

Forums New posts
Usual Suspect said:
So it's not so easy to dismiss USAF reports from the Golden Age in ufology
Click to expand...

I have to object, I think it is easy to dismiss them and necessary to do so. We know that the AFOSI have been involved in disinformation and that taints everything involved with the air force. Add this to the anecdotal nature of the information and it becomes another sinking sand area of debate for ufology.

I accept this is a wide brush to sweep over what many would see as credible cases.

The only way to move this topic on is to address data collection in the future from instrumented sources in enough quantity to form a credible theory.
 
Greers Meeting Planner said:
I have to object, I think it is easy to dismiss them and necessary to do so. We know that the AFOSI have been involved in disinformation and that taints everything involved with the air force.
Click to expand...
Relevant examples please. And while we're at it, let's not forget about all the civilian sightings. It's simply not reasonable to believe that all the cases in the Blue Book Unknowns or the civilian reports are all the work of disinfo agents, let alone both. In fact if you'd seen one for yourself pulling the kind of maneuvers I and others have, you'd know it's laughable. Plus even if it were possible to pull-off such a grand hoax it would be on a scale that rivals the Moon landings. No. Even bigger because the whole thing is international.
Add this to the anecdotal nature of the information and it becomes another sinking sand area of debate for ufology. I accept this is a wide brush to sweep over what many would see as credible cases.
Click to expand...
Now you're just rewinding back to your initial view without consideration for the points made. The ETH is a perfectly "credible theory". It certainly stands-up better than suggesting that craft that can instantly accelerate to thousands of miles per hour from a dead stop are really secret manmade craft from the 50s. That's basically saying that we're supposed to believe they build F-22 jets with conventional propulsion and avionics for hundreds of millions of dollars a pop just to cover for the "real thing ( UFOs )" which they've had under wraps for 60 years, and that decades of investigations into UFOs and advances in conventional aircraft, plus the space race was also just more disinfo to cover-up the UFO program. Go ahead and believe that if you want, but really? I take you as being smarter than that, so don't burst my bubble.
The only way to move this topic on is to address data collection in the future from instrumented sources in enough quantity to form a credible theory.
Click to expand...
Maybe in your mind that's the case. Which is fine. Get to work on that. In the meantime, there's the rest of out here who already know we're dealing with alien craft. We don't need instrumented sources. We've seen it for ourselves and/or done our homework. Personally, I could care less about vindicating myself to skeptics anymore. It's a waste of time and effort. From my perspective we need to move past the mentality that we need acceptance from disbelievers. Even if we could succeed in convincing most of them, all that would achieve is getting them up to speed with the rest of us. Then what?

Lastly, I've come to the conclusion that we could throw bags of money at the problem until it filled an Olympic sized swimming pool, and we'd still be no further ahead. It's not a problem that money can solve. It's a know-how problem. There's no cabal in some secret base that just magically figured out how to engineer UFOs back in the 50s ( or before ). Maybe in the next hundred years someone might stumble on the answer. Maybe.
 
Last edited:
Why DID the 509th put out a press release regarding the 'disc'? Does this suggest it was really part of some covert operation to try to frighten the Soviets?
 
Lou_Sheehan said:
Paul K., did you say there was online information explaining that Yukon case? Have a link?
Click to expand...
Just to be aware that although there was the re-entering space debris, the case is a lot like the phoenix lights and 1952 DC cases in the sense that on one hand it's obvious there were mundane aspects, but on the other, certain parts don't fit that explanation. Skeptics simply gloss over those parts and lump it all together so as to dismiss the entire thing. This tactic was particularly effective for the Washington DC '52 case. Until I looked further into it, the lens flare photo made perfect sense and that was good enough for me for years. So before writing-off the Fox Lake incident altogether, if you haven't done so already, check out the documentary:

 
Drawings and descriptions match from different people. Over 30 people admitted to seeing it. Sightings from 7:45 pm to 10 pm (that's a lengthy descent!). White and green light beams at 45 degree angles. . ""Holy Sh*t Gene!"

There is space debris almost every night. "'We track, on average, two to three objects reentering the Earth’s atmosphere each day,' said Defense department spokesperson Lt. Col. Monica Matoush." "'It’s a little known fact that approximately once a week, a large object like a defunct spacecraft or a rocket body falls out of space and plunges back to Earth, likely landing in the ocean, or a vast area like Siberia or the Canadian outback. And smaller objects are falling from space back to Earth daily in a fiery descent'". So every sighting can be perfunctorily explained away as spacejunk. But it is perfunctorial. Steady Stream of Space Debris Rains Down on Earth
 
Lou_Sheehan said:
Drawings and descriptions match from different people. Over 30 people admitted to seeing it. Sightings from 7:45 pm to 10 pm (that's a lengthy descent!). White and green light beams at 45 degree angles. . ""Holy Sh*t Gene!"

There is space debris almost every night. "'We track, on average, two to three objects reentering the Earth’s atmosphere each day,' said Defense department spokesperson Lt. Col. Monica Matoush." "'It’s a little known fact that approximately once a week, a large object like a defunct spacecraft or a rocket body falls out of space and plunges back to Earth, likely landing in the ocean, or a vast area like Siberia or the Canadian outback. And smaller objects are falling from space back to Earth daily in a fiery descent'". So every sighting can be perfunctorily explained away as spacejunk. But it is perfunctorial. Steady Stream of Space Debris Rains Down on Earth
Click to expand...

Excellent point! Nice inclusion of the space junk link too. I think I'm going to add "perfunctory" to my favorite word list :D .
 
Fundamentalist debunkers are only too happy to tell you what you saw (I might add this is also in riposte to Paul's comment that "I Know What I Saw" was a terrible movie title). I admit that most will find the debunking of this viewing convincing, but I must note one of several hypocritical quotes, i.e., they think people are excellent observers when witnesses can be used to support their positions and are otherwise terrible witnesses:
"The orientation of the Big Dipper in PEL2's sketch, which has it roughly horizontal, is not quite correct; in reality it
was tilted, with the bowl somewhat above the handle, but overall the agreement is excellent considering that the sketch
was made from memory, probably long after the fact."
 
"The event times reported by the eye-witnesses span the period from Dec 12, 03:00 UTC to 06:00 UTC (Dec 11, 7 PM PST to
10 PM PST), with several reports clustered at or near the apparent median time of Dec 12 04:30 UTC (Dec 11 8:30 PM PST).
A couple of the reports tend to lend weight to that time.

The witness identified as FOX5 reported 8:23 PM PST, based on having read her car's clock at the time. Fox3 reportedly
made a note of the date, with the time 8:30 PM PST. Local news reports following the events reportedly gave that time.
The decay estimate is in very good agreement with this time."

So ... the witness can look at her car's clock and that is reliable ... but what about her other experiences and observations? Does it really take 3 hours for a visible object to fall to Earth?
 
A link to Leslie's most recent article: Inside Knowledge About Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Could Lead To World-Changing Technology | HuffPost

Leslie Kean, Contributor
Investigative Journalist and Author
Inside Knowledge About Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Could Lead To World-Changing Technology
10/10/2017 09:05 am ET Updated 12 hours ago

Something extraordinary is about to be revealed. Former high-level officials and scientists with deep black experience who have always remained in the shadows are now stepping into the light. These insiders have long-standing connections to government agencies which may have programs investigating unidentifed aerial phenomena (UAP). They intend to move into the private sector and to make all declassified information, and any future knowledge, available for all to see.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top